Friday, May 5, 2017

Why are racist 'mere words' deeds, but the anti-racist 'mere words' of a university just lip service?

"Note, too, that the expressivist position suffers from an uncomfortable contradiction. A university administration that merely condemns hate speech, without mobilizing punitive sanctions, is held to have done little, to have offered 'mere words.' And yet this skepticism about the power of 'mere words' comports oddly with the attempt to regulate 'mere words' that, since they are spoken by those not in a position of authority, would seem to have even less symbolic force. Why is it 'mere words' when a university only condemns racist speech, but not 'mere words' that the student utters in the first place? Whose words are 'only words'? Why are racist words deeds, but anti-racist words just lip service?"